this game does feel slightly rushed compared to san andreas 2004

[D T]

I agree the game can feel quite empty despite having the largest GTA map to date. The lack of interiors for places as basic as Burger Shot, being unable to rob stores, small downtown/south LS area, interacting with peds almost always results in them running away screaming, no cage fighting or gang war activities, not many random encounters... it's little things like this that stop the game from feeling like a living breathing world for me.

 

Going to the Tequi-la-la and finding out it was unenterable is when it really hit me. The debut trailer just implied so many cool little features that never came to be. It may not have been pre-rendered, but most of it was just cutscene animations made specifically for that trailer.

 

 

I still think it's a beautiful game and appreciate all the dedication that was clearly put into it. I just think it could have done with some more interesting activities and places to visit. If it was console limitations that caused this, hopefully the next gen version will have some new features.

[Drake1212]

So, OP, what you're saying is that V's veichle customization feels limited compared to SA?
Well, you obviously haven't played GTA SA for a while then, let me fill you in:

SA had 3 different mod shops: one for low-riders, tuners and one for normal cars.
There were 8 lowriders and 5 tuners in the game and these could be PIMPED. However, every other car in the game had to be modded in Transfender, which had very limited options compared to the other. The only thing you could with these was spoilers, nitro, color and hydralics.

 

But what was the point? You could never use your own cars on missions or races. You could just store them in your garage and show them to a friend when he came over.
In GTA V every car has like 21 different aspects which can be modded, and there is actually a reason to do so since you keep your car.

[RyanM1995]

If the game was rushed then it wouldn't have been delayed. And the person that says there's no point in the train being there are you kidding? It's fun just moving around the map while enjoying the scenery. Also the train is a ton of fun online. I was chasing this guy who was on a train that had a bounty on him. He had some good cover so I decided to go to the back of the train and make my way forward to the other player. Managed to kill him then him and his friend started chasing me while on the train it was pretty fun. Yeah you can't drive the train but it isn't exactly there for no reason.

[ZZCOOL]

So, OP, what you're saying is that V's veichle customization feels limited compared to SA?

Well, you obviously haven't played GTA SA for a while then, let me fill you in:

SA had 3 different mod shops: one for low-riders, tuners and one for normal cars.

There were 8 lowriders and 5 tuners in the game and these could be PIMPED. However, every other car in the game had to be modded in Transfender, which had very limited options compared to the other. The only thing you could with these was spoilers, nitro, color and hydralics.

 

But what was the point? You could never use your own cars on missions or races. You could just store them in your garage and show them to a friend when he came over.

In GTA V every car has like 21 different aspects which can be modded, and there is actually a reason to do so since you keep your car.

i never said that i said it's similar to iv

Edited October 7, 2013 by zzcool

[redx165]

 

 

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

Something SA lacks considerably.

Are you kidding me? VC is a DLC compared to SA. What did VC improve in gameplay? Nothing, same bad movement, gunplay, driving, and camera angle.

 

The only thing VC added that was good is its story which was stolen from Scarface.

Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? I don't care about what's better between VC and SA. That's not what the thread is about.

 

I find it funny how you say SA was rush while it improve in so many ways with controls.

 

Like I said a long time ago why do people like Vice City?

- Tommy

- 80's theme + Music

- Story

- The City itself

 

It didn't improve gameplay and had the exact controls that III had. VC IS A RUSH GTA GAME.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

san andreas just feels like a game they made exactly as they wanted v dosn't.

I stopped there. You think San Andreas wasn't rushed? To me it was the kind of game that had quantity over quality. At least V feels like it is full of detail and quality with a fairly reasonable amount of quantity.

[Lil ski]

I appreciate your criticism OP and I agree with you but I don't think the game was exactly rushed, well at least rushing not the whole reason why the game feels like it is because I know they were on a time crunch and pissed off fans and don't wanna delay the game anymore than they already have.

 

But what I think is that the game was waaaaay too big for them to handle, like they were in way over their heads with this game. Think about it, you are constantly focusing on creating the "biggest, most ambitious GTA game EVAR", like trying to make San Andreas history, there tend to be little simple things that get left out.

 

There were numerous stuff that they wanted to put in this game and they all wanted the perfect GTA dream that we all wanted but it was too much for them to handle that they forgot alotta sh*t in the game or even unfinished some codding.

 

heres an example of that: You know that you are able to rob gas stations and liquor stores but not other establishments like clothes stores, right? Well when you bust into the clothes stores with a gun (shooting from the outside first) you will be able to shoot the cash registers and take the money just like how you would do in a gas station. But what I think happened was that those other establishments were ment to be robbed the same way as well but when came time to do the coding for the buisness itself, they simply forgot to finish the robbery coding in it.

 

I think that goes with alotta things in the game or ideas they had and started on but didn't finish it or just simply forgot to add it. and I don't blame them for it, its understandable, the game was soooo freaking big and ambitious that they just were in waaay over their heads.

I still love this game tho.

[FloatinWalrus]

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

[oCrapaCreeper]

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

GTA V is bigger than SA, about 2 times bigger. But there were some tricks used by SA back then to make it seem massive, such as low render distance.

Edited October 8, 2013 by oCrapaCreeper

[ZZCOOL]

 

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

GTA V is bigger than SA, about 2 times bigger. But there were some tricks used by SA back then to make it seem massive, such as low render distance.

 

actually san andreas is massive

 

los santos alone as seen on a new engine

 

[hugh750]

 

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

GTA V is bigger than SA, about 2 times bigger. But there were some tricks used by SA back then to make it seem massive, such as low render distance.

 

the graphics in gta sa pushed the ps2's graphics abilities to it's limits.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

 

 

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

Something SA lacks considerably.

 

Are you kidding me? VC is a DLC compared to SA. What did VC improve in gameplay? Nothing, same bad movement, gunplay, driving, and camera angle.

The only thing VC added that was good is its story which was stolen from Scarface.

Why are you getting your panties in a bunch? I don't care about what's better between VC and SA. That's not what the thread is about.

 

I find it funny how you say SA was rush while it improve in so many ways with controls.

 

Like I said a long time ago why do people like Vice City?

- Tommy

- 80's theme + Music

- Story

- The City itself

 

It didn't improve gameplay and had the exact controls that III had. VC IS A RUSH GTA GAME.

And I still like it more than SA.

 

To be fair in my original post I said SA is "one " of the most rushed GTAs not the most rushed of them all. You're just turning things into a debate for no reason at all, but that's what you seem to do by taking things out of context unfortunately.

[oCrapaCreeper]

 

 

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

GTA V is bigger than SA, about 2 times bigger. But there were some tricks used by SA back then to make it seem massive, such as low render distance.

 

actually san andreas is massive

 

los santos alone as seen on a new engine

 

 

Not when compared to V's Los Santos.

 

Really, try looking at an overview of San Andreas with the fog gone. You'd be surprised.

Edited October 8, 2013 by oCrapaCreeper

[îlîlîlîlîlî]

You know for someone who makes money off of other peoples mods, you have no right to nitpick.

[caseclosedjk]

Actually, while yes, some areas in V scream "RUSHED!", GTA SA had some pretty rushed parts too. The entire area of San Fierro is low quality. It is not as polished as LV and LS because they started building SF last and ran out of time to fully polish it for the October 2004 deadline.

 

Many things were also cut to speed up development. Go here to see everything: http://gta.wikia.com/Beta_Releases#Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas

 

Anyways, out of all, GTA LCS is clearly the most rushed. They tried to reuse almost all models from 3, and then had to do alot of things in a small time frame. Many of it feels rushed and there are some obvious story inconsistencies that show more missions were planned.

Edited October 8, 2013 by caseclosedjk

[jonc22]

I agree the game was good and looks great but feels like something missing

[ZZCOOL]

I agree the game was good and looks great but feels like something missing

yes theres nothing wrong with but but yes it feels like something is missing

[HugoMoreira]

That's right bro!Rockstar's says "We can put alot of things in a game of the generation" but how could they put alot of things in SA?They can't make a big game (in terms of map size) and they lie to us,they can't make a game in the size of Just Cause 2 that's it!

[Official General]

I don't think it's necessarily rushed compared to SA especially. SA is one of the most rushed GTAs ever made.

 

It's never felt to me like the game R* wanted to make. More of a statement than anything. It's full of bugs and glitches and shallow features. The entire asset side of it has always felt half assed compared to VC.

 

GTA V has its faults, but I'm not sure if I'd put down to being rushed. There was obviously a lot of time and effort spent on it.

 

Something SA lacks considerably.

 

I mostly disagree bro.

 

The main cons of San Andreas was that the storyline went a bit too much off-course three quarters into the game with all that Mike Toreno/green goo stuff. Another slight letdown was the graphics (on the PS2 at least). They could have been better in certain areas, although some textures in other areas did look great.

 

Other than that, SA had a ton of great features. There was just so much fun and interesting things to do to keep replayability levels high. GTA V does not appear to have much to do after the main storyline apart from manage assets.

[DeafMetal]

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

[ZZCOOL]

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

then why does v feel so one dimensional and small compared to san andreas that felt alive and big

[Official General]

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

 

Sorry bro, I still disagree.

 

It's not nostalgia and San Andreas is not even my favorite GTA. I'm just telling it as I see it. SA had more things to do regarding criminal activities. You could engage in gang wars, take over territory, intercept drug shipments, buy properties all over in addition to owning the businesses. It may be small to you but the muscles, boxing and tattoos were great fun and a nice side addition to the serious stuff.

 

However SA's wilderness was very empty, which was not good, but the technology at the time was not ready for that.

[DeafMetal]

 

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

then why does v feel so one dimensional and small compared to san andreas that felt alive and big

 

That's completely subjective, man. I disagree completely with that sentiment.

 

@Official General: I'm not talking about the amount of activities, though. I'm talking about the quality of some of these activities. You're talking about the amount of activities rather than their polish, which AFAIK is what OP was talking about. Again, I love San Andreas. It was the best core GTA game (w/o DLC) until GTA V imo. But it doesn't mean that it didn't have its faults, even considering its hardware.

Edited October 8, 2013 by DeafMetal

[DoubleOGJohnson]

 

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

then why does v feel so one dimensional and small compared to san andreas that felt alive and big

 

 

Because San Andreas had 3 cities, you had the sprawled out looking Los Santos, the dense San Fierro, and the adult theme park city in the desert Las Venturas. All 3 cities were pretty much the SAME size on the map, but the WAY they were constructed and designed felt different. Plus there is nothing like traveling from one city to the next. In GTA 5 it's only Los Santos so it feels like you're on a "journey to nowhere" half the time. SA was big with a purpose, because it was an entire state with major cities where GTA V is just big out of spite. And it's funny how people talk about SA's map and site "draw distance" as if GTA San Andreas is small, GTA San Andreas is still a big map TILL THIS DAY. Sometimes I wonder if some of the people on GTAForums are hypebeasts and prisoners of the moment who only play the newest GTAs with the comments they make on the older games. I've played VC, SA, 4, and 5 all in this week and there isn't sh*t small about GTA San Andreas' map.

[DoubleOGJohnson]

 

 

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

then why does v feel so one dimensional and small compared to san andreas that felt alive and big

 

 

 

Because San Andreas had 3 cities, you had the sprawled out looking Los Santos, the dense San Fierro, and the adult theme park city in the desert Las Venturas. All 3 cities were pretty much the SAME size on the map, but the WAY they were constructed and designed felt different. Plus there is nothing like traveling from one city to the next. In GTA 5 it's only Los Santos so it feels like you're on a "journey to nowhere" half the time. SA was big with a purpose, because it was an entire state with major cities where GTA V is just big out of spite. And it's funny how people talk about SA's map and site "draw distance" as if GTA San Andreas is small, GTA San Andreas is still a big map TILL THIS DAY. Sometimes I wonder if some of the people on GTAForums are hypebeasts and prisoners of the moment who only play the newest GTAs with the comments they make on the older games. I've played VC, SA, 4, and 5 all in this week and there isn't sh*t small about GTA San Andreas' map.

 

 

That's completely subjective, man. I disagree completely with that sentiment.

 

@Official General: I'm not talking about the amount of activities, though. I'm talking about the quality of some of these activities. You're talking about the amount of activities rather than their polish, which AFAIK is what OP was talking about. Again, I love San Andreas. It was the best core GTA game (w/o DLC) until GTA V imo. But it doesn't mean that it didn't have its faults, even considering its hardware.

 

 

San Andreas is better than GTA V. The only advantages GTA V has are in departments relating to technology, which is something you have to toss aside when judging games that are 10 years apart. Technology is pure time related and dependent on when the game was made. So that sh*t can not be a criteria. The only criteria for judging games made far apart is "fun factor". And outside of all the flashy new age surface level sh*t, San Andreas is better and more fun than GTA 5. Ask yourself this, "if GTA SA and GTA V were theoretically made at the same time, would you still prefer GTA 5 more?" Hell no. The only thing 4 and 5 have on GTA SA is more modern tech, if all of those games were made at the same exact time, there wouldn't even be an argument as to GTA SA being better

Edited October 8, 2013 by DoubleOGJohnson

[jptawok]

sh*t, you must've missed the sticky where it says it's a capital crime, punishable by death, for comparing this game to SA. Even if it has striking similarities, you're not allowed to compare this apple to that other apple. Fool.

 

/sarcasm

 

I wish this game was more like SA...

 

 

 

I thin you're putting on your nostalgia glasses for this one. San Andreas was a damn good game -- as good as GTA V imo back in the day, and still very fun today. But it was a lot more rushed than was GTA V. Many of the new activities seemed lacking. Basketball, pool, relationships, etc. So, while the core game was very polished, many of the newer additions that were not coming in from Vice City or a variant of those coming in from Vice City were usually fairly unpolished.

 

Sorry bro, I still disagree.

 

It's not nostalgia and San Andreas is not even my favorite GTA. I'm just telling it as I see it. SA had more things to do regarding criminal activities. You could engage in gang wars, take over territory, intercept drug shipments, buy properties all over in addition to owning the businesses. It may be small to you but the muscles, boxing and tattoos were great fun and a nice side addition to the serious stuff.

 

However SA's wilderness was very empty, which was not good, but the technology at the time was not ready for that.

 

 

This guy gets it. It's not even nostalgia, though theres a heavy dose for anybody who played SA when it was current.

 

If you compare how good SA was at its time, average level of enjoyment, and quantity (not quality, looking at you hunger/fitness) of things to do, SA curb stomps V.

 

I really just want to do breaking and enterings, enter turf wars, and have businesses I participate in aside from "pick this guy up, drive this van, recover these things in the ocean". Remember the print store missions in VC?!

Edited October 8, 2013 by jptawok

[kj2022]

It doesn't feel rushed exactly, it feels.. like it's lacking something somehow, something I can't quite put my finger on.

 

This, I'm not sure what it is, but it's missing.

[Magnet_man16]

 

 

I don't think the game was rushed I think that Rockstar has their priorities bleeped up... And screwed over people for the crappy GTA Online.

this is the kind of size i wanted (this would be possible even on current gen) with a little less trees what i mean is a part of the map that dosn't have roads just forest

 

 

 

This is Grand Theft Auto, not a nature simulator. Dense forests like that wouldn't fit the play style of the game R* intends, and thus would be a waste of effort, money, and assets.

 

 

Well you haven't seen the comparisons of the bridge screen shot. They had loads of trees and removed them so the sh*t game would work on Xbox and PS3. Actually they removed tons of detail from the map.

[DoubleOGJohnson]

I completely agree with Op. I know rockstar says the map is bigger than SA but I just dont see it. And I still think SA is the best game they have made. I loved that game. Where the fk are the jetpacks? haha

 

Yeah San Andreas is the best GTA, and pushed the envelope the most. I've played and beaten GTA V, and some people here say it is better than SA but I do not see it. I think people just say that because it is the newest one, I remember when GTA 4 first came out, people swore for several months that GTA 4 was better than SA. Well....that movement lasted a few months and then crashed and burned. You need to have a long shelf life before you make the claim that GTA V is better than SA, because San Andreas had an infinite shelf life and GTA V probably wont have as long a shelf life as SA. People are already bored and talking about GTA 6.

[unknown57]

http://gtaforums.com/topic/618667-poll-its-timeyour-favourite-gta

GTA: San Andreas (34 votes [43.04%])

GTA V (23 votes [29.11%])

The End.